"jim beam" > wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "jim beam" > wrote
> > snip, something others shoud learn.
> >
> >>>But I absolutely object to your claim that
> >>>Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
> >
> > Civic.
> >
> >>>
> >>elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
> >>they are today -
> >
> >
> > I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of
years
> > around 1991.
> >
> it's the same interval as the 94 isn't it?

According to my Chilton's covering 1984-1995 Civics, Yes.

I think we're having a miscommunication. At the top, I meant I object to
anyone's claim that it's flat-out wrong for Honda to put a guideline of
90k/6 years for the 91 Civic (and other Civic years near it that also
specify 90k/6 years).

Of interest though is that there is a footnote next to the timing belt
interval spec for the 1992-1995 Civics, whereas there is not for the
1988-1991 Civics. The footnote states: "This service is recommended only."

> post 96 is the extended
> interval.

People can google or look at their owner's manual. I realize the interval is
higher for certain newer Hondas. We're splitting hairs.

Somewhat related is that the recommended interval tends to be different in
Canada, most likely because of the more severe weather. As you know...

I don't want to try to twist the original poster's arm. (Like that can be
done on Usenet.) I mean, he knows the risk he's taking at this point. That's
what is important. He may very well roll the dice and win.